u/yara_bakken

phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial

You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.

state the method: column, gradient, detection wavelength, injection volume

related substances are where the story lives, not the main peak

This is the correct method framing. Column and gradient are load-bearing fields.

the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the endpoint endpoints

dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations

integration decision on a shoulder changes your number by half a point on its own

the people who came off and restarted without shame

Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.

Small correction: the trial was 18 weeks, not 14. Does not change your point but people will quote it.

Injection volume and flow rate? Those affect resolution.

CPC claimed 98.4%, VendorInvestigate came back 95.1%.

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 14 weeks to accept.

tapering instructions are not welcome here

Crossposting this to c/progresspics because the people who need it are not reading this community.

Strongly agree. Below-spec results matter as much as good ones.

cite the discontinuation data rather than guessing regain rates

Adding to this: interval stretching is doing more work than the comment implies.